Junction416 said:
Development that is sensitive to the context of their neighbourhood, like these examples of appropriate midrise buildings that have contributed to the texture and atmosphere of the neighbourhood.

View attachment 3481View attachment 3482View attachment 3483
Click to expand...

The first is located on Bloor, near Lansdowne. Its architecture is very bland, and the fact that it has no ground floor retail on a street that is known for retail means the atmosphere it creates is one of a dead zone. I wouldn't even call a three storey building "midrise".

The second is the Glen Lake on Dundas, north of Bloor, across from the Wallace Avenue footbridge. There's a curve in Dundas, which could enliven the architecture, but it's just a rectangular slab, obtusely planted on the site. The extra space in front created by the curve in the road is used for the parking garage entrance, which looks ugly and completely out of place in the Victorian neighbourhood. The faux-historic lighting around the property clashes with the modern architecture, making it seem even more awkward.

The last one is the only project which I think makes a fine contribution to the neighbourhood. The lot near the railway tracks was industrial and could have easily been forgotten and neglected, but a sophisticated conversion took place, adding residential density while being sensitive to the low-rise neighbourhood context and its history.
 
junctionist said:
The second is the Glen Lake on Dundas, north of Bloor, across from the Wallace Avenue footbridge. There's a curve in Dundas, which could enliven the architecture, but it's just a rectangular slab, obtusely planted on the site. The extra space in front created by the curve in the road is used for the parking garage entrance, which looks ugly and completely out of place in the Victorian neighbourhood. The faux-historic lighting around the property clashes with the modern architecture, making it seem even more awkward.
Click to expand...

I have driven past that building at least a thousand times, and I didn't recognise it. I suppose that is better than really disliking it like the Bloor example, but the architect and the developer could have done so much better. That is a really intersting area of the city - I love the Victorian industrial buildings. I wonder why the architect wasn't inspired by those...

junctionist said:
The last one is the only project which I think makes a fine contribution to the neighbourhood. The lot near the railway tracks was industrial and could have easily been forgotten and neglected, but a sophisticated conversion took place, adding residential density while being sensitive to the low-rise neighbourhood context and its history.
Click to expand...

So, this is a conversion? I wish that I wasn't so predictable, but I can't help loving these heritage buildings. :)

AmJ
 
gmeo said:
grey: the land was purchased for about $6M.

Based on their gross floor area of 277,374 sf (29-storeys and 293 units) , this would mean a price per sf buildable at about $22. Builder may have been getting a bit greedy here if the prices were in the $400/sf...
Click to expand...

I do not think the builder was getting greedy, the cost of materials have trippled in the last 10 years, the cost of labour has increased as well, and most devlopers have to pay an additional tax for area improvements that could range from 1 mil - 5 mil depending on the area. Where the builders make a profit is in the range of 10%, and this in not counting on the interests of the loans they had to take to finance the project.

If it was not for capital interests nothing in this city would have ever been built...........we would see social housing being built on every corner.

Toronto has no vision for the future..........
 
Rikk said:
I do not think the builder was getting greedy, the cost of materials have trippled in the last 10 years, the cost of labour has increased as well, and most devlopers have to pay an additional tax for area improvements that could range from 1 mil - 5 mil depending on the area. Where the builders make a profit is in the range of 10%, and this in not counting on the interests of the loans they had to take to finance the project.

If it was not for capital interests nothing in this city would have ever been built...........we would see social housing being built on every corner.

Toronto has no vision for the future..........
Click to expand...

+1.

Developer acquires property with millions of dollars of its own capital, assumes rezoning risk, market risk, construction risk and a multi-year timeframe to recover one cent of its investment and it is greedy?!

What do you think about the folks who line up in the rain for the chance to bump off a bona fide homeowner for a 200% flipper return on their deposit and nothing more?
 
But the costs of construction only go up with height, so building expenses are not an excuse to build high. The excuse to build high is because they paid a heap for the land, which evidently they paid only $6 million for.

If they cut the height down to 15 floors, they could start building immediately with no red tape. That would be the smart thing to do. They'd just have to rename it to a shorter animal.
 
Last edited:
OMB decison well argued

The OMB's decision is well argued. The developer was appealing not only this project but the Avenue By-law recently put into place by the city following an extensive Avenue Study. The new by-law envisions much more density for the Bloor-Dundas area through re-development of the many "soft sites". It re-zones the block from Dundas to Keele as 6 storeys as of right and allows additional density on many other sites, including a 5 and an 11 storey building north of Crosways, a 10 or 15 storey building on the northwest corner, depending on whether some Bloor frontage is consoidated prior to development, and the Loblaws/Zellers plaza. Residents took part in the Avenue Study in significant numbers and overall support for intensification is high (so the NIMBY label suggested by some posters on this forum is inappropriate). Residenta who supported the city at the OMB did not want to see the overall plan undermined by this non-conforming proposal in spite of the quality of the architecture and its potential green credentials.

The Giraffe developer based the appeal in part on the timing of the application (more of a technical argument) but as a substantive argument, the developer argued that the 1540 site had many unique circumstances compared to the other sites in the area and therefore deserved the requested height (92.5m) and density (16.1 times coverage). This argument was not supported by the evidence presented - for example, as every site in this area is within five minutes' walk of a subway station, the "close to transit therefore more density" argument could not hold water. The adjudicator pointed out that the size of the site (which is about one tenth the size of the Crossways site) "severely restricts its ability to accommodate reasonable built form transitions between 27 storeys and existing 2 storey or Avenue By-law as-of-right 6 storey buildings."

It is unfortunate for the overall development of the neighbourhood that the developer pusued this application even when it was obvious that the city would not approve it and would defend its Avenue By-law aggressively at the OMB. In my opinion, this was not an example of prudent risk management. In some sense, everybody loses, but on balance the right decision was made and the neighbourhood is better off waiting for a more appropriate proposal. As shown by The Address at High Park at 1638 Bloor, also within the Avenue Study, a developer negotiating in good faith with the city and community can successfully and expeditiously bring in a development here, even when it somewhat exceeds the guidelines.
 
Maybe the developer can sell this land back to the city ( considering how generous the city has been lately paying for property ) and then they can build a nice 8-12 storey eco-friendly TCHC building that would be a good fit into the community.
 
Last edited:
window.jpg


not sure if this has been posted yet, but here you go.
 

Attachments

  • window.jpg
    window.jpg
    65.1 KB · Views: 486
Automation Gallery said:
Maybe the developer can sell this land back to the city ( considering how generous the city has been lately paying for property ) and then they can build a nice 8-12 storey eco-friendly TCHC building that would be a good fit into the community.
Click to expand...

love it! that area deserves a "nice" TCHC building.
 
Got a letter from TAS the other day, it basically states what we all know.
"The OMB issued a negative decision regarding Giraffe last week. At this time we are in discussions with the city and reviewing how we may proceed with various options. We would like to assure you that we are dealing with this decision, and we will keep you informed as we proceed." All deposits are secure and future deposits will not be transacted until further notice.

So.. who knows that this means. Maybe they're assuming that the buyers don't know that they were shot down the way they were. Maybe they are selling the land to the city? Maybe they are redesigning the tower? Maybe they are starting all over again?
It's all a mystery at the moment it seems.
 
Sunday, March 28, 2010

News Weird
Zookeeper injured in head-butt with giraffe
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Last Updated: March 27, 2010 8:09pm

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — A zookeeper has been treated at a hospital for minor head injuries and released after butting heads with a giraffe.

A spokesperson for the Roger Williams Park Zoo told The Providence Journal that the 18-foot(5 1/2-meter)-tall giraffe was being playful and took a swipe at the keeper when she was cleaning up in a space between the exhibit and the public viewing area Saturday.

The keeper remained conscious and was able to walk to safety.

Spokesperson Jan Mariani said the 20-year-old Griffy is not an aggressive animal but likes to get close to people and get his head petted.



That article was in the Toronto sun today, funny how real life parities real life.
 
milanista said:
So.. who knows that this means. Maybe they're assuming that the buyers don't know that they were shot down the way they were. Maybe they are selling the land to the city? Maybe they are redesigning the tower? Maybe they are starting all over again?
It's all a mystery at the moment it seems.
Click to expand...

Why would the City be interested in buying this land?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top